The problem confronting the GOP can be found in this statement by Speaker Denny Hastert:

"We need to reform the rules so that it is clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what is ethically acceptable."

Given the complexity of House rules and regulations I'm sure this is true in a technical sense. But in a very plain sense - in other words the way in which an average American voter might hear it -  the statement is woefully deficient.  Why on Earth do Republicans need rules to tell them what is 'ethically acceptable'? Shouldn't we be able to expect them to just intrinsically know this sort of thing?

Though the GOP leadership race is "inside baseball" to most Americans, the general outline between making a real change in leadership or continuing on with the status quo isn't. John Boehner may be perfectly honest and upright, but he's also been closely associated with K Street. Roy Blunt may be honest as well, but he's a loyal DeLay guy who is married to a tobacco lobbyist.

Irrespective of whether either of these two might prove to be a more effective Majority Leader, timing and circumstance weigh heavily in the favor of Shadegg. As the Abramoff investigation proceeds there is surely more pain coming for the GOP.  The best way to minimize the damage is for House Republicans to signify a clean, unequivocal break from "the Abramoff years." That involves taking a certain amount of risk and promoting a fresh face. Given the options, John Shadegg clearly looks like the best choice.